Important points
In order to bring a person in the status of `an aggrieved person` it must be shown that in spite of the fact that he is not a party to the suit or decree, he would stand bound by the decree like in the case of pendente lite transferee, a person holding estate (subject matter of suit) in common with a party to the suit, a person otherwise bound by the decree with respect to any estate substantially represented in the suit, in a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, property held by and represented through a trustee or a suit relating to the property of perpetual minor, religious congregation etc.
The test available to find out `an aggrieved person` for the purpose of enabling a right of appeal lies on the question whether he is bound by the decree in spite of his non inclusion as a party to the lis-In the instant case, the appellants are not litigating under any of the persons/parties to the lis. No case of common interest or common estate with any of the parties to the lis was brought up or let in.

1. The prayers in the WP(C).No.36560 of 2018 are as follows.

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioners also for their 16.30 Ares of property acquired vide LAC No.12/2013 on the basis of Ext.P4 orders and as requested in Ext.P5 representation and to disburse the same accordingly in the interest of justice;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the applicability of Ext.P3 award in granting enhanced compensation to the petitioner at 15% excess alone as being arbitrary, illegal unjust and two meagre while considering the amount granted in Ext.P4 award and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant the same compensation envisaged in Ext.P4 to the petitioners also without infringement of their rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and sought for vide Ext.P5 representation; and

iii. To grant such other and further reliefs deemed fit to be granted by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and

iv. To allow the costs of this proceedings. ”

2. The prayers in the WP(C).No.36569 of 2018 are as follows.

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioner also for her 8.51(5.99+2.52) Ares of property acquired vide LAC No.175 & 176/2013 on the basis of Ext.P4 orders and as requested in Ext.P5 representation and to disburse the same accordingly in the interest of justice;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the applicability of Ext.P3 award in granting enhanced compensation to the petitioner at 15% excess alone as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and two meagre while considering the amount granted in Ext.P4 award and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant the same compensation envisaged in Ext.P4 to the petitioners also without infringement of their rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and sought for vide Ext.P5 representation; and

iii. To grant such other and further reliefs deemed fit to be granted by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and

iv. To allow the costs of this proceedings. ”

3. The prayers in the WP(C).No.37563 of 2018 are as follows.

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioners also for her 2 Ares of property acquired vide LAC No.151/2013 on the basis of Ext.P4 orders and as requested in Ext.P5 representation and to disburse the same accordingly in the interest of justice;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the applicability of Ext.P3 award in granting enhanced compensation to the petitioner at 15% excess alone as being arbitrary, illegal unjust and two meagre while considering the amount granted in Ext.P4 award and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant the same compensation envisaged in Ext.P4 to the petitioners also without infringement of her rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and sought for vide Ext.P5 representation; and

iii. To grant such other and further reliefs deemed fit to be granted by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and

iv. To allow the costs of this proceedings.”

4. As these cases give rise to common and interrelated issues, these matters are disposed on the basis of this common judgment.

5. The lands of these petitioners have been acquired by the respondents in accordance with the provisions contained in National Highways Act, 1956. Ext.P-2 is the copy of the respective awards passed in each of these land acquisition cases by the 2nd respondent competent authority in terms of the provisions contained in the above said Act